Review Viking bust from RP Models

[Sergei]

The situation with Viking shields seems to be more complex than VerSacrum suggests, because, quite surprisingly, these items have remained largely understudied. Some shields may have been covered with leather, but others apparently were not, as their wooden surfaces still bear remnants of paint. RP Models might just have it right.

For recent research on Viking shields, see here:

https://www.sciencenorway.no/archae...ending-our-ideas-about-viking-shields/2203358

 

[VerSacrum]

The situation with Viking shields seems to be more complex than VerSacrum suggests, because, quite surprisingly, these items have remained largely understudied. Some shields may have been covered with leather, but others apparently were not, as their wooden surfaces still bear remnants of paint. RP Models might just have it right.

For recent research on Viking shields, see here:

https://www.sciencenorway.no/archae...ending-our-ideas-about-viking-shields/2203358

The article you posted clearly states that shields (meant for combat, not ceremonial/decorative purposes) were commonly covered as a means of protection. Even IF the shield here is a 1 in 1000 exception and is supposed to depict naked, painted wood, the woodgrain would still be way too exaggerated. And it doesn't change the fact that it didn't exist in the original sculpt.
No, RP models didn't get it right. No thought went into the application of their textures here.

Edit: And once again: I have nothing at all against somewhat speculative pieces as long as it remains plausible overall. It's the "authenticity guarantee" on the box that irks me, the lack of credit (if they so graciously aid the Ukrainian war effort, why not let their buyers know that too), and most of all these dishonest, sponsored reviews of models people get for free by their friends and later sell in the market place. They undermine the credibility of this "product review" sub forum.

 

[Sergei]

The article you posted clearly states that shields (meant for combat, not ceremonial/decorative purposes) were commonly covered as a means of protection. Even IF the shield here is a 1 in 1000 exception and is supposed to depict naked, painted wood, the woodgrain would still be way too exaggerated. And it doesn't change the fact that it didn't exist in the original sculpt.
No, RP models didn't get it right. No thought went into the application of their textures here.

Edit: And once again: I have nothing at all against somewhat speculative pieces as long as it remains plausible overall. It's the "authenticity guarantee" on the box that irks me, the lack of credit (if they so graciously aid the Ukrainian war effort, why not let their buyers know that too), and most of all these dishonest, sponsored reviews of models people get for free by their friends and later sell in the market place. They undermine the credibility of this "product review" sub forum.

Whether intentionally or not, you overlook the fact mentioned at the end of the article: the wooden surface of some shields was painted, indicating that the painting was meant to remain uncovered and visible. As a professional historian, I think it is important to consider all available facts rather than choosing those that support your views. But if you are more interested in waging your holy war against RP Models, good luck with that.

 

[VerSacrum]

Whether intentionally or not, you overlook the fact mentioned at the end of the article: the wooden surface of some shields was painted, indicating that the painting was meant to remain uncovered and visible. As a professional historian, I think it is important to consider all available facts rather than choosing those that support your views. But if you are more interested in waging your holy war against RP Models, good luck with that.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here. It could be a ceremonial/decorative shield as I said, could be an additional layer of protection, similar to the English bowmen who also slapped paint on some of their bows to protect the wood from weathering. Shields meant for combat were protected, their surfaces treated so they were smooth, period.

And since you know that Vikings knew their woodworking, why are you defending this ridiculously exaggerated shield surface, claiming this shield would even be remotely fit for combat, while appealing to objectivity at the same time?

I'm not interested in waging a holy war, but point taken. I felt like calling Nap and the fanboys out, that's all.

 

[arj]

The website hurstwic.com has a very interesting article on Viking shields, their construction etc, and refers to archaeological finds which you should find interesting.

Cheers,
Andrew